Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seeing Big Foot isn’t a subjective experience.

Yes it is

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Granted, given that definition, there is no evidence for the supernatural........but there is no evidence for evolution (common ancestry) ether (given that definition)

That is completely false.
Evolution makes testable predictions.
There's a huge body of independently verifiable facts that demonstrably match those predictions.

And I mean HUGE.
You couldn't have picked a worse example to make your silly point.
Evolution as a scientific idea has probably the largest body of verifiable facts supporting it then any other idea in science.

Your definition is too restrictive

Why? Because it shows your nonsense has no evidence?

, you should substitude the words "excusivley matches" for softer words......

No.

..otherwise there wouldn't be evidence for anything.

False.
The exclusive part is rather important. If data can support multiple mutually exclusive ideas, then it isn't evidence for any of them. Or at least not in the sense that you can determine which of the mutually exclusive ideas is right or wrong.

For example, the nested hierarchical structure of DNA exclusively supports evolution theory. There is no other proposed explanation from which the predictions of nested hierarchies flows naturally. This is why it exclusively supports evolution theory.

Nice shift

No shift. It's upto people who claim that the supernatural exists, to define it.
And if those people want to deal with evidence, they'll have to define it testable ways so that it even CAN have evidence on principle.
Untestable / unfalsifiable ideas are infinite in number and can't have evidence (for or against). They are unverifiable by definition.

, I personally have no idea how to define" supernatural "

Then the conversation is over. If you don't even know yourself what you are talking about when using the term, why are we still talking about it?
Might as wel talk about "gooblydockbloblo".

but you are suppose to offer such definition.

lol, but *I* am the one making the shifts, right?????

lolololol

You are the one who claims that there is no evidence for the supernatural

By definition, since there is no testable definition of the word.
Anything that has no testable definition, has no evidence by definition........
That goes for "gooblydockbloblo" as well as "supernatural".

How can there be evidence for the supernatural if the term can't even be properly defined?

you are the pne who has to offer a definition

No, the ones who claim it exists have to do that.
When I talk about it, I am RESPONDING to people who bring it up.
Someone needs to claim X exists, before I can reject X (for whatever reason)

The suggestion of the OP is that the resurection is the best explanation for the "bed rock facts"

And I explained multiple times how that is ridiculous.
It ignores extremely mundane things that happen EVERY DAY in favor of mega-extra-ordinary things that NEVER happen.
If you think the argument in the OP is good enough to support Jesus' resurection, then you should also believe that Tupac, Michael Jackson and Elvis are alive and well.

Your burden is to provide an alternative explanation and explain why is that a better explanation.

I already did.
People make mistakes.
People lie.
People are delusional.
People exaggerate.

All 4 happen EVERY DAY.
All 4 are a LOT more likely then "the laws of nature were violated / suspended".

Whether if you whant to label the resurection as a supernatural event or not is just a matter of semantics

People never come back alive after being dead for several days.
But people make mistakes, lie, hallucinate, exaggerate, .... every single day.

 

[leroy]

No independent supporting historical records for the existence of Jesus nor the resurrection

Independent from what?

 

[leroy]

Because the "metaphysical brainfart opinions" of "some" no-named "writers" is irrelevant to what is observable, demonstrable and factual.


I don't care about "philosophers".
The consensus among scientists is that causality is a phenomenon of the (classical) physics of the universe and temporal in nature.
This is what we observe and can demonstrate.

Well supposedly this conversation is about the cause if the big bang, so the "rules" of the clasical universe are irrelevant

 

[Colt]

Independent from what?

Its a fake argument, there were no historians writing about a great many people who lived in that age and or what they wrote is lost! Jewish historians or "journalists" certainly had no desire to write about Jesus! Great forces inside Judaism were trying to erase him! They thought that by killing Jesus their periblems with him would be gone! They were only just beginning because Jesus wasn't on trial before his enemies, THEY were on trial before God!

Its funny, the same people who argue the lack of scholars or historians present is some sort of proof will also claim that hundreds of millions of years ago lightning struck a puddle of water, proteins popped out and life fell up hill to the point of conscious man!

 

[leroy]

That is completely false.
Evolution makes testable predictions.
There's a huge body of independently verifiable facts that demonstrably match those predictions.

And I mean HUGE.
You couldn't have picked a worse example to make your silly point.
Evolution as a scientific idea has probably the largest body of verifiable facts supporting it then any other idea in science.

Maybe , but that has nothing to do with what you defined as "evidence"

For example, the nested hierarchical structure of DNA exclusively supports evolution theory.

That is false. I would agree that common asestry is by far what better fits with the nested hierarchical structures but *exclusivley* is a very strong word.

A crazy conspiracy theory where scientists are lieyng and making up stuff for no apparent reason would also explain the data.

After all to lie is a mundano thing to right? (These are your words)

This is why your definition of evidence is too restrictive.... no obvervation is exclusive for a specific hypothesis.


A trival example
If you find me at walmart abd you note that I have dog food in my kart

Would that be evidence that I have a dog? (Yes)

Does that observation fits *exlusivley* to the hypothesis that I have a dog (No)

Therefore your definition fails.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well supposedly this conversation is about the cause if the big bang

Which is nonsensical for reasons already stated.
Like talking about north of the north pole.

, so the "rules" of the clasical universe are irrelevant

They are not. You can't invoke the physics of the universe and pretend they apply in a context without said universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Independent from what?

Independent of the people who have religious reasons to believe it; of people who are invested in said story and need / require to believe it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Its a fake argument, there were no historians writing about a great many people who lived in that age and or what they wrote is lost! Jewish historians or "journalists" certainly had no desire to write about Jesus! Great forces inside Judaism were trying to erase him! They thought that by killing Jesus their periblems with him would be gone! They were only just beginning because Jesus wasn't on trial before his enemies, THEY were on trial before God!

Its funny, the same people who argue the lack of scholars or historians present is some sort of proof will also claim that hundreds of millions of years ago lightning struck a puddle of water, proteins popped out and life fell up hill to the point of conscious man!

And another strawmen drivel argument.

 

[blü 2]

3:6.5 (53.3) It is a great blunder to humanize God, except in the concept of the indwelling Thought Adjuster, but even that is not so stupid as completely to mechanize the idea of the First Great Source and Center.” UB 1955

Well, the alternative to cause+effect is randomness,

So which is it for God?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The study of historical events like the resurrection remains a complex and ongoing discourse in academia.

Sorry, but this is simply not the case.

The "resurrection" isn't a controversial or complex "discourse" in academia at all.
It's about as "discussed" as the 12 works of Hercules.

This is only an issue among christians trying to rationalize their beliefs. That's it.

No serious academia are even contemplating this issue.
It's rejected at face-value as the fantastical extra-ordinary magic claim that it is.
It gets the same treatment as Hercules' 12 works or any other "miracles" in cultural religious lore.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe , but that has nothing to do with what you defined as "evidence"

It has everything to do with it, as it 100% matches what "evidence" is as I defined it.

That is false.

It isn't. There is no other idea from which testable predictions naturally flow which includes nested hierarchies.

I would agree that common asestry is by far what better fits with the nested hierarchical structures but *exclusivley* is a very strong word.

It is. You are welcome to give me a single well defined idea for the origins of species from which a prediction of nested hierarchies naturally flows.
You can't, because there is no such idea. Only evolution has this prediction naturally flowing from it.

A crazy conspiracy theory where scientists are lieyng and making up stuff for no apparent reason would also explain the data.

Let's stick to the real world and not your fantastical imagination that is neither here nor there and which makes absolutely no sense.
Also, the prediction of nested hierarchies is one that naturally flows from the model.
It's not a prediction simply because some scientist "claims" it is.

This is why your definition of evidence is too restrictive.... no obvervation is exclusive for a specific hypothesis.

What I meant by "exclusive" is that there is no other competing well defined idea that makes the same testable predictions.
If you have mutually exclusive ideas that both make prediction A, then finding A will not tell you which of both ideas is more fitting to the evidence.
Hence "A" becomes "useless" as evidence for either, as it doesn't allow you do distinguish between both.

Again: only evolution requires life to exist in nested hierarchies. There is no other well-defined idea that requires this.

A trival example
If you find me at walmart abd you note that I have dog food in my kart

Would that be evidence that I have a dog? (Yes)

Does that observation fits *exlusivley* to the hypothesis that I have a dog (No)

Therefore your definition fails.

Because there are other well defined reasons for why you might want to buy dog food.
Like you having to take care of your brother's dog while he is on vacation.
So the data of you buying dogfood is not capable of distinguishing between these well-defined ideas.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to comprehend the difference.

 

[Colt]

Well, the alternative to cause+effect is randomness,

So which is it for God?

God is first cause. Within the evolution of life is a purposive potential. Potential has always been supreme over the actual at any moment in time for evolving life. The craving for perfection is a fingerprint of the creator of life.

 

[Colt]

And another strawmen drivel argument.

Which means truth is spoken and the Atheist has an allergic reaction to truth!

 

[Brian2]

You said god had detectable manifestation. This implies that you can distinguish an existing god from a non-existing one.
Please explain how this can be done, instead of rambling on how it can not be done....

God has all sorts of ways of revealing Himself to people.

Science also doesn't say that the undetectable dragon that follows me everywhere I go doesn't exist either....
But the question is how do I distinguish said dragon from one that doesn't exist.
So how do I distinguish your supposedly existing god with supposed detectable manifestation from a non-existing god?

You will need to allow the dragon to reveal itself to you if it wants to, but you need to stay open to the possibility that the dragon might do that.

The universe exists and it is finite into the past. So it seems like a given that it began somehow in some way.

Just not at T=0 and not before T=0 and not after T=0.
So you don't know when or how.

Not "somehwere".

"Where" is a place in space.
"When" is a moment in time.

If you remove the universe, aka the space-time continuum, then both space and time go out the window.

Yes, our minds can't really comprehend what that means.
Yet, here we are.

This is the dificulty of the frontier of physics. It is so much out of our daily common experience that we don't even have proper english words to express such things.
Because our language is completely geared towards temporality and the notion of "places". But neither exists if you remove the universe.

So really, these notions can only be (somewhat) properly expressed in math.
Yes, it's confusing, I know... I hate it too. And love it at the same time, LOL

But yeah... when it comes to the idea of a multi-verse in a context where the universe doesn't exist... there is no "there" there, nor is there a "when".
Or at least not in the way we understand those terms.

Or perhaps the multi-verse itself is another giant "parent" space-time bubble within which new space-time bubbles form... perhaps in black holes or something. I once read some crazy mind bending theory like that. It had a crazy conceptual image illustrating this but sadly I can't find it anymore.

In any case, all this is speculation and the fact is that we simply don't know.
The fact simply is that words and concepts like "where" and "when" only really make sense within the confines of our space-time bubble called the universe.

It seems like just speculation that if this universe is removed then all of space and time also don't exist in another space time universe.
And as you said, the fact is that we simply don't know. Think Monty Python's Flying Circus.

monty phthons flying circus muic and cartoon extro - Google Search

www.google.com

I don't make that claim. Neither does science to my knowledge.
But it is certainly true that we only have evidence of this universe.

Although we also have some rather solid theories that somewhat predict things like multi-verses.

We only have evidence for this universe but that does not eliminate the existence of anything else.

You started this post by saying that god has detectable manifestation.
Are you backpeddling already?

No, just saying that we cannot even find any more life in this universe other than on earth so why would we think that we can find God through looking.
Seek and you shall find is true, but that is true for people who are willing to seek in more ways than to keep looking under real rocks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which means truth is spoken and the Atheist has an allergic reaction to truth!

Strawmen arguments are logical fallacies.
They don't require anything more then being pointed out.

Sure, I'm "allergic" to logically fallacious nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God has all sorts of ways of revealing Himself to people.

This is yet another claim.
Can you just answer the question please?

How do you distinguish the supposed detectable manifestation of an existing god vs a non-existing god?

You will need to allow the dragon to reveal itself to you if it wants to, but you need to stay open to the possibility that the dragon might do that.

IOW, you need to believe the dragon is real before asking the question if it is real. So you need to operate from an assumed conclusion which opens the door to confirmation bias.

"detectable manifestation". It seems you have no clue what that means.

Just not at T=0 and not before T=0 and not after T=0.
So you don't know when or how.

Again, it's finite into the past. T = 0 means that it's not infinite into the past.
Whatever happened, happened at T = 0.
And I indeed don't know what happened.
Neither do you. Nobody does. It's unknown.

It seems like just speculation that if this universe is removed then all of space and time also don't exist

That's not speculation.
Space and time are an integral part of the universe. It's what makes up the universe.
Space-time IS the universe.
It makes zero sense to say that removing the universe doesn't remove space and time.

The universe IS space and time.

in another space time universe.
And as you said, the fact is that we simply don't know. Think Monty Python's Flying Circus.

monty phthons flying circus muic and cartoon extro - Google Search

www.google.com

We only have evidence for this universe but that does not eliminate the existence of anything else.

Nothing eliminates the existence of undetectable things.
Nothing eliminates the possibility of an existing undetectable dragon following me.
Nothing eliminates the possibility of undetectable unicorns, graviton fairies, gods, etc.

Potential unfalsifiable, undetectable entities are INFINITE in number. They are only limited by your imagination.
This is why I say that only claims of falsifiable things with detectable manifestation matter.

The rest is useless and meaningles and indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

No, just saying that we cannot even find any more life in this universe other than on earth

We haven't even properly looked for it.
But we CAN look for it in principle because such life is falsifiable with detectable manifestation.

We can not look for gods who are unfalsifiable with no detectable manifestation. Not even only in principle.
So no, it really is not on the same order.

so why would we think that we can find God through looking.

Because it can't be found by definition. Just like my undetectable dragon.
Just like non-existent things.
You can look under every rock in the universe, behind every planet, inside any atom, beyond any stars, for a bazillion years and you will come up empty, because the undetectable and the non-existent look exactly alike.

Seek and you shall find is true, but that is true for people who are willing to seek

You mean: people who engage in self-brainwashing and confirmation bias. Who paint the bullseye around the arrow. Who pretend to have the answers before even asking the questions. Who start from an assumed conclusion.

in more ways than to keep looking under real rocks.

The alternative being to look under non-existing rocks?

 

[blü 2]

God is first cause. Within the evolution of life is a purposive potential. Potential has always been supreme over the actual at any moment in time for evolving life. The craving for perfection is a fingerprint of the creator of life.

For it to matter that God was first cause, everything else would have to happen as a result of that, But that's true if you're omniscient and omnipotent too, nothing can happen without your entire approval and intention.

In physics strict determinism is mitigated by quantum randomness ─ not in any way that might admit the dignity of freewill, of course ─ but with God, well, nothing stops any of [his] intentions from happening.

 

[Brian2]

"Critical scholars recognize sources are not reliable and one must be skeptical to get history from them."

The skepticism destroys the history and makes them untrue until proven to be true and certainly presumes from the beginning that the supernatural elements there are not true.

Most People Have No Clue What The Gospels Are!

10:09 Did the disciples write the Gospels, no, historical evidence says no. There are very good reasons how this is known. They do not claim to be eyewitnesses and written by very high level Greek writing. The illiterate people in the story were not the writers.

There is a presumption of illiteracy.
There is a presumption that the people who wrote the words were the same as the ones who said the words.
Luke claims that his sources were witnesses and those there from the beginning.
Reason applied to John's gospel shows that the teller of the story/ies is the apostle John.

12:35 Did the Gospel authors care about what actually happened. -
The Gospels contain historical information and they contain legendary information.

That is no more than skeptical denial of the supernatural elements and wanting normal people to agree that the supernatural elements must be BS.

14:40 Can we trust the canonical Gospels? Gospels date probably from 40-65 years after Jesus death. NT writers would not have known eyewitnesses but may have sources who knew stories.

These stories have been passed down for many many years. Each writer probably thought they were writing the “one” Gospel.

If you use the skeptical presumption that the supernatural elements are BS then you start off your dating at around 70AD and so end up with the writers not knowing eyewitnesses. This is circular reasoning. It starts off presuming the stories are BS and ends by concluding the same. It is amazing that academics don't see this, but continue to deceive themselves and others using such nonsense arguments.

1:45 Critical scholars recognize sources are not reliable and one must be skeptical to get history from them.

And that does not show that the gospels are non true. The stories began with witnesses and that imo is part of the reason that the gospel was believed. There was good evidence. But evidence survives even if the actual witnesses are gone. They left records and it takes skeptical presumptions and deceitful arguments to say that
the gospels cannot be true.

1:57 The Gospels are not pretending to be history, they are making some proclamation about Jesus. So to read them just as history is a bit silly, it’s like trying to read David Copperfield as history. You can get some history out of that but…it’s fiction.
The Gospels have legend in them. They are important books and not without some history.

So says a skeptic of course. It is the history that makes them worth anything at all in regards to who Jesus is and what He did. Who cares if Jesus said, "Be good, love each other". Thousands say that.

3:04 There are atheist scholars, like me. You don’t just trash works because of legends. You try to find out what’s history.

Of course, but they don't realise they are trashing them if they claim that their skeptical presumptions are true.

3:45 Fundamentalists say “there can be nothing wrong in the Gospels”, conspirators atheists say “there can be nothing right”, both sides are not correct.

And that does not make Bart Ehrmann right.

4:55 What scholars do is analyze the sayings of Jesus and try to figure out what is real or fiction.

And the presuppositions that they bring with them should be put on page 1 of their books so that people don't take their opinions as "gospel".

7:10 Storytellers were making up sayings for Jesus after his death.

So?

 

[Brian2]

What are you referring to as detectable manifestations? Detectable by what methods?

At present, the only 'detectable' anything is by scientific methodology. This is the reason science CANNOT say whether God exists or not.

Detectable by faith when God reveals Himself to us.

I try and keep things simple. One definition most common is our universe that began(?) with the expansion of matter and energy from a singularity or in some way cyclic. I do not like the term 'Big Bang,' There was no Bang. ALL the current hypotheses or models of our early universe are based on the existence of a Quantum World where a singularity formed or a cyclic expansion took place. The concept of T-0 is a beginning where the three or more dimensional space and time as we know it on a large scale began to exist.

There are many unanswered questions, and most of the indirect evidence is based on math models and Quantum Mechanics fit well withe alternate scientific views of the early universe, and what has been theoretically possible is a boundless universe,

Is the age of the Universe "boundless"?

I was reading this Quora post, and it seems to say that the late, great Stephen Hawking has proven this. https://www.quora.com/Have-scientists-disproved-Stephen-Hawkings-theories-of-the-universe His work in both areas has shown that time is boundless in both directions, both forwards and...

www.physicsforums.com

Note, btw, that Hawking's actual proposal for a universe being "boundless" in the past, which was called the "no boundary" proposal, was not that the universe had existed for an infinite time in the past, but that the spacetime geometry of the very early universe was such that "time" had no meaning there and there was no starting boundary. Basically, instead of the geometry of the universe either extending infinitely into the past or having an "edge" at an initial singularity, it would be more like a hemisphere joined to an expanding cone, with the join being something like the big bang (or possibly the start of inflation). The "expanding cone" part is the part which can be viewed as a conventional expanding universe. The "hemisphere" part is the "no boundary" part, where "time" is not a meaningful concept--it doesn't extend infinitely into the past (since the hemisphere is finite), but it also has no boundary (since the hemisphere has no edge anywhere). AFAIK this proposal is not currently considered a contender for a valid model of the universe. But I'm not familiar with the details of why it is not.

The other 'universe is the physical existence that contains our universe and all possible universes.

Hmmm OK thanks for that.